Topical sentiments in electronically stored communications

ABSTRACT

The present application presents methods for performing topical sentiment analysis on electronically stored communications employing fusion of polarity and topicality. The present application also provides methods for utilizing shallow NLP techniques to determine the polarity of an expression. The present application also provides a method for tuning a domain-specific polarity lexicon for use in the polarity determination. The present application also provides methods for computing a numeric metric of the aggregate opinion about some topic expressed in a set of expressions.

CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

The present application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional PatentApplication Ser. No. 60/614,941, filed Sep. 30, 2004.

BACKGROUND

One of the most important and most difficult tasks in marketing is toascertain, as accurately as possible, how consumers view variousproducts. A simple example illustrates the problem to be solved. As thenew marketing manager for BrightScreen, a supplier of LCD screens forpersonal digital assistants (PDAs), you would like to understand whatpositive and negative impressions the public holds about your product.Your predecessor left you 300,000 customer service emails sent toBrightScreen last year that address not only screens for PDAs, but theentire BrightScreen product line. Instead of trying to manually siftthrough these emails to understand the public sentiment, can textanalysis techniques help you quickly determine what aspects of yourproduct line are viewed favorably or unfavorably?

One way to address BrightScreen's business need would be a text miningtoolkit that automatically identifies just those email fragments thatare topical to LCD screens and also express positive or negativesentiment. These fragments will contain the most salient representationof the consumers' likes and dislikes specifically with regard to theproduct at hand. The goal of the present invention is to reliablyextract polar sentences about a specific topic from a corpus of datacontaining both relevant and irrelevant text.

Recent advances in the fields of text mining, information extraction,and information retrieval have been motivated by a similar goal: toexploit the hidden value locked in huge volumes of unstructured data.Much of this work has focused on categorizing documents into apredefined topic hierarchy, finding named entities (entity extraction),clustering similar documents, and inferring relationships betweenextracted entities and metadata.

An emerging field of research with much perceived benefit, particularlyto certain corporate functions such as brand management and marketing,is that of sentiment or polarity detection. For example, sentences suchas I hate its resolution or The BrightScreen LCD is excellent indicateauthorial opinions about the BrightScreen LCD. Sentences such as TheBrightScreen LCD has a resolution of 320×200 indicates factualobjectivity. To effectively evaluate the public's impression of aproduct, it is much more efficient to focus on the small minority ofsentences containing subjective language.

Recently, several researchers have addressed techniques for analyzing adocument and discovering the presence or location of sentiment orpolarity within the document. J. Wiebe, T. Wilson, and M. Bell,“Identifying collocations for recognizing opinions,” in Proceedings ofACL/EACL '01 Workshop on Collocation, (Toulouse, France), July 2001,discovers subjective language by doing a fine-grained NLP-based textualanalysis. B. Pang, L. Lee, and S. Vaithyanathan, “Thumbs up? sentimentclassification using machine learning techniques,” in Proceedings ofEMNLP 2002, 2002 use a machine learning classification-based approach todetermine if a movie review as a whole is generally positive or negativeabout the movie.

This prior art makes significant advances into this novel area. However,they do not consider the relationship between polar language andtopicality. In taking a whole-document approach, Pang, et al. sidestepsany issues of topicality by assuming that each document addresses asingle topic (a movie), and that the preponderance of the expressedsentiment is about the topic. In the domain of movie reviews this may bea good assumption (though it is not tested), but this assumption docsnot generalize to less constrained domains (It is noted that the dataused in that paper contained a number of reviews about more than onemovie. In addition, the domain of movie reviews is one of the morechallenging for sentiment detection as the topic matter is often of anemotional character; e.g., there are bad characters that make a movieenjoyable.) Weibe et al.'s approach does a good job of capturing thelocal context of a single expression, but with such a small context, thesubject of the polar expression is typically captured by just theseveral base noun words, which are often too vague to identify the topicin question.

SUMMARY

In summary, in an industrial application setting, the value of polaritydetection is very much increased when married with an ability todetermine the topic of a document or part of a document. In thisapplication, we outline exemplary methods for recognizing polarexpressions and for determining the topic of a document segment.

The present invention, therefore, provides a lightweight but robustapproach to combining topic and polarity, thus enabling text miningsystems select content based on a certain opinion about a certain topic.

More specifically, a first aspect of the present invention can becharacterized as providing a computer implemented method (in which acomputer can be any type of computer or computer system, network orcombination thereof programmed and configured to perform the stepsdescribed herein) for obtaining topical sentiments from anelectronically stored communication (which can be, for example andwithout limitation, an electronic document, message, email, blog post,and the like—and it is not important to the invention exactly where orhow the communication is electronically stored and/or accessed) thatincludes the steps of (in no specific order): (a) determining a topic ofa segment of the communication; and (b) locating a polar expression inthe communication. In a more detailed embodiment, the method alsoincludes the step of (c) determining a polarity of the polar expression,where the polarity may be positive, negative, mixed and/or neutral, forexample. It is also within the scope of the invention that the methodinclude the step of (d) associating the determined polarity with thedetermined topic.

The steps (b) locating a polar expression in the electronically storedcommunication and (c) determining the polarity of the polar expressionmay include the steps of: (1) establishing a domain-general polaritylexicon of sentimental/polar phrases (i.e., words and phrases) (2)establishing a topical domain being explored; (3) generating a polaritylexicon of sentimental phrases associated with the topical domain; (4)utilizing the polarity lexicon against phrases found in the polarexpression; and (5) assigning at least one polar phrase in the polarexpression a polarity associated with a matching phrase in the polaritylexicon. The step (c) of determining the polarity of the polarexpression may also include the step of assigning at least one polarphrase in the polar expression a polarity. In a more detailed embodimentthe method may further include the step of (e) analyzing the polarexpression with syntactic and/or semantic rules to determine a topic ofthe polar expression and to link the determined topic to the polarity ofthe polar phrase.

It is further within the scope of the invention that the step (a) ofdetermining a topic of the segment of the communication containing orassociated with the polar expression includes the step of processing thesegment with a communication (i.e., text) classifier. Such communicationclassifier may utilize an algorithm, such as a Winnow algorithm, aSupport Vector Machine algorithm, a k-Nearest Neighbor algorithm, othermachine learning algorithms, or a hand-built rules-based classifier.

It is also within the scope of the invention that the step (a) ofdetermining a topic of the segment of the communication and the step (c)of determining the polarity of the polar expression are independenttasks.

The segments of the communication discussed above may be an entirecommunication or a portion of the communication, such as a sentence forexample. Further the segment discussed above may be the polarexpression.

A second aspect of the present invention can be characterized asproviding a computer implemented method for obtaining topical sentimentsfrom a body of communications (text, electronic, etc.) comprising thesteps of: (a) isolating a subset of the communications relevant to aparticular topic; and (b) locating a polar expression in at least one ofthe subset of communications. The method may also include the steps of(c) determining the polarity of the polar expression and (d) associatingthe polarity with the particular topic.

A third aspect of the present invention can be characterized asproviding a computer implemented method for obtaining topical sentimentsfrom a body of communications (text, electronic, etc.) comprising thesteps of: (a) isolating a first subset of the communications relevant toa particular topic; and (b) isolating a second subset of communicationsfrom the first subset of communications where the second subset ofcommunications includes polar segments (i.e., negative or positive)located in the first subset of communications. The second subset can bebroken into further subsets depending upon the particular polarity ofthe polar segments (i.e., there can be subsets for positive segments,negative segments, neutral segments and/or others). The method may alsoinclude the step of (c) associating the polar segments with theparticular topic. The segments can be a sentence, a phrase, a paragraphor an entire communication for example.

A fourth aspect of the present invention can be characterized asproviding a computer implemented method for obtaining topical sentimentsfrom a plurality of electronically stored communications that includesthe steps of: (a) determining with the assistance of a computer whethereach communication in a plurality of communications is topical to afirst predefined topic; (b) for each communication determined to betopical to the predefined topic, separating with the assistance of acomputer the communication into one or more expressions (a word or agroup of words that form a constituent of a sentence and are consideredas a single unit); (c) for each expression, determining with theassistance of a computer if the expression is topical to a secondpredefined topic; and (d) for each expression that is determined to betopical to the second predefined topic, determining with the assistanceof a computer a polarity of the expression. In a more detailedembodiment the polarity may be positive, negative, and/or neutral. Inanother detailed embodiment, the step of determining the polarity of theexpression may include the steps of: establishing a topical domain beingexplored; generating a polarity lexicon of sentimental words and/orphrases associated with the topical domain; utilizing with theassistance of a computer the polarity lexicon against words and/orphrases found in the expression; and assigning at least one polar phrasein the expression a polarity associated with a matching word and/orphrase in the polarity lexicon.

In yet another detailed embodiment of the fourth aspect of the presentinvention the step of determining the polarity of the expression mayfurther include the step of analyzing with the assistance of a computerthe expression with syntactic and/or semantic rules. In yet anotherdetailed embodiment, the step of determining with the assistance of acomputer whether each communication in a plurality of communications istopical to a first predefined topic includes the step of processing eachcommunication with a text classifier. This text classifier may utilizean algorithm such as a Winnow algorithm, a Support Vector Machinealgorithm, a k-Nearest Neighbor algorithm or a rules-based classifier.

In yet another detailed embodiment of the fourth aspect of the presentinvention the method may further include the step of (e) calculatingwith the assistance of a computer an aggregate metric from the pluralityof expressions which estimates the frequency of positive and/or negativepolar expressions. This step may include the generation ofstatistically-valid confidence bounds on the aggregate metric. This step(e) may also include the steps of: for each of the plurality ofexpressions, estimating an opinion based upon the presence, absence orstrength of polarity associated with the predefined topic; andaggregating the overall opinion for the plurality of expressions. Thestep of aggregating the overall opinion for the plurality of expressionsmay include a step of normalizing the ratio of empirical or estimatedfrequency of positive and negative polarity associated with thepredefined topic. Alternatively, the step (e) of calculating anaggregate metric from the plurality of expressions may utilize Bayesianstatistics to derive estimates for positive and negative frequencies ofpolar expressions.

In yet another detailed embodiment of the fourth aspect of the presentinvention, the first predefined topic is a general topic and the secondpredefined topic is a specific topic associated with the general topic.In a further detailed embodiment the general topic is a product orservice and the specific topic is a feature of the product or service.Alternatively, the general topic is a commercial brand and the specifictopic is a feature of the commercial brand. It is also within the scopeof the invention that the first predefined topic and the secondpredefined topic are the same topic.

A fifth aspect of the present invention can be characterized as acomputer implemented method for calculating, from a plurality ofelectronically stored expressions, an aggregate metric which estimates afrequency of positive and/or negative polar expressions contained in theexpressions. The method includes the steps of: for each of a pluralityof electronically stored expressions, determining with the assistance ofa computer an opinion contained in the expressions based upon at leastone of the presence, absence and strength of polarity associated with apredefined topic; and calculating an aggregate metric from thedetermined opinions of the plurality of expressions. In a detailedembodiment of this fifth aspect of the present invention the step ofcalculating an aggregate metric from the determined opinions of theplurality of expressions includes the generation of statistically-validconfidence bounds on the aggregate metric. Alternatively, or inaddition, the step of calculating an aggregate metric from thedetermined opinions of the plurality of expressions includes a step ofnormalizing the ratio of empirical or estimated frequency of positiveand negative polarity associated with the predefined topic.Alternatively, or in addition, the step of calculating an aggregatemetric from the determined opinions of the plurality of expressionsfurther includes utilizing Bayesian statistics to derive estimates forpositive and negative frequencies of polar expressions. Alternatively,or in addition, at least a portion of the plurality of expressions aretaken from larger electronically stored communications. Alternatively,or in addition, the step of determining an opinion contained in theexpressions includes the steps of, for each expression: determining withthe assistance of a computer that the expression is topical to thepredefined topic; and determining with the assistance of a computer apolarity of the expression.

A sixth aspect of the present invention can be characterized as acomputer implemented method for finding one or more polar expressions inan electronically stored communication, which includes the step ofanalyzing with the assistance of a computer the electronically storedcommunication for one or more polar expressions within theelectronically stored communication. This analyzing step includes thesteps of: providing a polarity lexicon of sentimental words and/orphrases associated with a topical domain; utilizing with the assistanceof a computer the polarity lexicon against words and/or phrases found inthe expression; and assigning with the assistance of a computer at leastone word/phrase in the expression a polarity associated with a matchingword/phrase in the polarity lexicon. In a more detailed embodiment ofthis sixth aspect of the present invention, the step of assigning withthe assistance of a computer at least one word/phrase in the expressiona polarity associated with a matching word/phrase in the polaritylexicon, includes the steps of: separating the expression intoword/phrase chunks; tagging the separated word/phrase chunks withpart-of-speech tags; applying the polarity lexicon against theword/phrase chunks to tag one or more of the word/phrase chunks with apolarity tag; and applying syntactic and semantic rules against thetagged word/phrase chunks to elevate the polarity of the word/phrasechunk to the entire expression. The step of applying syntactic andsemantic rules against the word/phrase chunks to elevate the polarity ofthe word/phrase chunk to the entire expression includes the step ofidentifying a word/phrase chunk in the expression that toggles thepolarity of the word/phrase chunk tagged with the polarity tag.Alternatively, the step of applying syntactic and semantic rules againstthe word/phrase chunks to elevate the polarity of the word/phrase chunkto the entire expression includes the step of performing with theassistance of a computer grammatical analysis on the expression.

A seventh aspect of the present invention can be characterized as acomputer implemented method for tuning a polarity lexicon for use inclassifying polar expressions, which includes the steps of: (a)providing a polarity lexicon; (b) with the assistance of a computerimplemented graphical user interface providing a user with candidatewords for addition, subtraction or exclusion to the polarity lexicon;and (c) adding, subtracting or excluding each candidate word from thepolarity lexicon according to input received by the graphical userinterface. In a more detailed embodiment, the step of (b) providing auser with candidates for addition, subtraction or exclusion to thepolarity lexicon includes a step of scanning a plurality of electronicmessages collected for the topical domain for words that have thepotential to be added to the lexicon. The scanning step may include apattern based method that locates adjectives and adverbs that have asubstantial chance of being polar; or the scanning step may locatecandidate words by filtering the communication for words that appear atleast a predefined number of times; or the scanning step may include apattern based method that locates adjectives and adverbs that have asubstantial chance of being polar and locates candidate words byfiltering the communication for words that appear at least a predefinednumber of times.

In yet another detailed embodiment of the seventh aspect of the presentinvention, the step of (b) providing with a graphical user interface auser with candidate words for addition, subtraction or exclusion to thepolarity lexicon includes the step of presenting each candidate word tothe user with the word's part of speech label and an example of thatcandidate word appearing in at least one electronic message collectedfor the topical domain.

An eighth aspect of the present invention can be characterized as acomputer implemented method for obtaining topical sentiments from anelectronically stored communication, which includes the steps of:determining with the assistance of a computer one or more topicalexpressions in the communication; locating with the assistance of acomputer one or more polar expressions in the communication; andidentifying an expression that is both a topical expression and a polarexpression as containing a topical sentiment. In a more detailedembodiment, the steps of determining one or more topical expressions andlocating one or more polar expressions are isolated steps performed onthe same communication. In a further detailed embodiment, the step ofdetermining one or more topical expressions includes a step of applyingan automated text classifier on the communication and the step oflocating one or more polar expressions includes the step of utilizing adomain-specific lexicon and shallow NLP techniques.

Upon reviewing the following detailed description and associateddrawings, it will be appreciated by those of ordinary skill in the art,of course, that many other aspects of the invention exist, which may notbe summarized above.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a graphical user interface screen view from an exemplarycomputerized tool for implementing certain embodiments of the presentinvention, showing results of a text mining algorithm;

FIG. 2 is a graphical user interface screen view from an exemplarycomputerized tool for implementing certain embodiments of the presentinvention, showing how more specific sub-topics may be selected;

FIG. 3 is a graphical user interface screen view from an exemplarycomputerized tool for implementing certain embodiments of the presentinvention, showing how both the positive and negative expressions foundin the communications may be displayed to the user;

FIG. 4 is a graphical user interface screen view from an exemplarycomputerized tool for implementing certain embodiments of the presentinvention, showing complete text of a message containing an expressionselected from the interface of FIG. 3;

FIG. 5 is a graphical user interface screen view from an exemplarycomputerized tool for implementing certain embodiments of the presentinvention, showing how rule-based classifiers may be built;

FIG. 6 is a graphical user interface screen view from an exemplarycomputerized tool for implementing certain embodiments of the presentinvention, showing how a user may use the system to tune a polaritylexicon; and

FIG. 7 is a scatter-plot graph showing an analysis of confidence boundsby the amount of message volume about a brand.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

1. Introduction

The present invention strikes out a middle ground between the Weibe etal. and Pang et al. approaches and presents a fusion of polarity andtopicality. One approach to performing this task is to do a fullNLP-style analysis of each sentence and understand at a deep level thesemantics of the sentence, how it relates to the topic, and whether thesentiment of the expression is positive or negative. In the absence ofcomprehensive NLP techniques, we approximate the topicality judgmentwith either a statistical machine learning classifier or a hand-builtrules-based classifier and the polarity judgment with shallow NLPtechniques. An exemplary embodiment assumes that any sentence that isboth polar and topical is polar about the topic in question. However,when these modules are run separately there are no guarantees that asentence that is judged to be both topical and polar is expressinganything polar about the topic. For example the sentence It has aBrightScreen LCD screen and awesome battery life does not say anythingpositive about the screen. The present invention described hereindemonstrates that the underlying combination assumption made by thissystem is sound, resulting in high-precision identification of thesesentences.

The present application presents exemplary methods for performingtopical sentiment analysis employing fusion of polarity and topicality.One approach to performing this task is to perform a full NLP-styleanalysis of each sentence and understand at a deep level the semanticsof the sentence, how it relates to the topic, and whether the sentimentof the expression is positive or negative (or any other sentimentcapable of being expressed in a message).

In the absence of comprehensive NLP techniques, alternate embodimentsapproximate the topicality judgment with a statistical machine learningclassifier or a hand-built rules-based classifier and the polarityjudgment with shallow NLP techniques. One embodiment of the system wedescribe assumes that any sentence that is both polar and topical ispolar about the topic in question. However, when these modules are runseparately there are no guarantees that a sentence that is judged to beboth topical and polar is expressing anything polar about the topic. Forexample the sentence It has a BrightScreen LCD screen and awesomebattery life does not say anything positive about the screen.Nevertheless, one embodiment described herein demonstrates that theunderlying combination assumption made by this system is sound,resulting in high-precision identification of these sentences.

In summary, in an industrial application setting, the value of polaritydetection is very much increased when married with an ability todetermine the topic of a document or part of a document. In thisapplication, we outline methods for recognizing polar expressions andfor determining the topic of a document segment.

The present invention, therefore, provides a lightweight but robustapproach to combining topic and polarity thus enabling content accesssystems to select content based on a certain opinion about a certaintopic.

2. Polarity

2.1 Polarity Detection

Texts can be broadly categorized as subjective or objective. Those thatare subjective often carry some indication of the author's opinion, orevaluation of a topic as well as some indication of the author'semotional state with respect to that topic. For example, the expressionthis is an excellent car indicates the author's evaluation of the car inquestion; I hate it! reflects the author's emotional state with respectto the topic. An additional type of expression informative in thiscontext is that which indicates a desirable or undesirable condition.These expressions may be deemed objective. For example, It is broken maywell be objective but is still describing an undesirable state.

An idealized view of polarity detection would be able to accept anydocument, or subsection thereof, and provide an indication of thepolarity: the segment is positive, negative, mixed or neutral.Additionally, in an alternative embodiment of the present invention,expressions can be analyzed and rated according to the strength of anysentiment that is capable of being expressed in words. Such sentimentsneed not be analyzed in opposite pairs (as in the case of positivity andnegativity in the exemplary embodiment); a message can be analyzed forthe expression of any individual qualitative sentiment, and the relativestrength of that sentiment in the message can be expressed on anumerical scale (as is described herein with reference to the sentimentsof positivity and negativity). Examples of such additional qualitativesentiments that can be expressed in a message and analyzed according tothe present invention include, but are not limited to: anger, hate,fear, loyalty, happiness, respect, confidence, pride, hope, doubt, anddisappointment.

However, this is only half of the story. Firstly, the classification ofpolar segments has a dependency on many other aspects of the text. Forexample, the adjective huge is negative in the context there was a hugestain on my trousers and positive in the context this washing machinecan deal with huge loads. There is no guarantee that the informationrequired to resolve such ambiguities will be present in the observablesegment of the document.

Secondly, knowing that a piece of text is positive is only as useful asour ability to determine the topic of the segment. If a brand manager istold that this set of documents is positive and this set is negative,they cannot directly use this information without knowing, for example,which are positive about their product and which are positive about thecompetition.

An exemplary embodiment of the polar phrase extraction system accordingto the present invention was implemented with the following steps.

In the set up phase, a domain-general lexicon is developed. A lexicon isa list of words or phrases with their associated parts-of-speech, and asemantic orientation tag (e.g. positive or negative). For example, thismay contain the words ‘good’ and ‘bad’ as positive and negativeadjectives, respectively. Then, this domain-general lexicon is tuned tothe domain being explored. For example, if we are looking at digitalcameras, phrases like ‘blurry’ may be negative and ‘crisp’ may bepositive. Care is taken not to add ambiguous terms where possible as werely on assumptions about the distribution of the phrases that we candetect with high precision and its relationship to the distribution ofall polar phrases. Note that our lexicon contains possibly ‘incorrect’terms which reflect modern language usage as found in online messages.For example, there is an increasing lack of distinction between certainclasses of adverbs and adjectives and so many adjectives are replicatedas adverbs.

At run time, the input is tokenized. The tokenized input is thensegmented into discrete chunks. The chunking phase includes thefollowing steps. Part of speech tagging is carried out using astatistical tagger trained on Penn Treebank data. (We note that taggerstrained on clean data, when applied to the noisy data found in ourdomain, are less accurate than with their native data.) Semantic taggingadds polar orientation information to each token (positive or negative)where appropriate using the prepared polarity lexicon. Simple linear POStag patterns are then applied to form the chunks. The chunk types thatare derived are basic groups (noun, adjective, adverb and verb) as wellas determiner groups and an ‘other’ type.

The chunked input is then further processed to form higher-ordergroupings of a limited set of syntactic patterns. These patterns aredesigned to cover expressions that associate polarity with some topic,and those expressions that toggle the logical orientation of polarphrases (I have never liked it.). This last step conflates simplesyntactic rules with semantic rules for propagating the polarityinformation according to any logical toggles that may occur.

If the text This car is really great were to be processed, firstly thetokenization step would result in the sequence {this, car, is, really,great}. Part of speech tagging would provide {this_DT car_NN, is_VB,really_RR, great_JJ}. Assuming the appropriate polarity lexicon,additional information would he added thus: {this_DT, car_NN, is_VB,really_RR, great_JJ;+} where ‘+’ indicate a positive lexical item. Notethat features are encoded in a simplified frame structure which is atree. The standard operations of unification (merging), test forunifiability and subsumption are available on these structures.

The chunking phase would bracket the token sequence as follows:{(this_DT)_DET, (car_NN)_BNP, (is_VB)_BVP, (really_RR, great_JJ)_BADJP}.Note that the basic chunk categories are {DET, BNP, BADVP, BADJP, BVP,OTHER}.

The interpretation phase then carries out two tasks: the elevation ofsemantic information from lower constituents to higher, applyingnegation logic where appropriate, and assembling larger constituentsfrom smaller. Rules are applied in a certain order. In this example, arule combining DET and BNP chunks would work first over the sequence,followed by a rule that forms verb phrases from BNP BVP BADJP sequenceswhenever polar information is found in a BADJP.

Note that there is a restriction of the applicability of rules relatedto the presence of polar features in the frames of at least oneconstituent (be it a BNP, BADJP, BADVP or BVP).

The simple syntactic patterns are: Predicative modification (it isgood), Attributive modification (a good car), Equality (it is a goodcar), Polar clause (it broke my car).

Negation of the following types are captured by the system: Verbalattachment (it is not good, it isn't good), Adverbal negatives (I neverreally liked it, it is never any good), Determiners (it is no good),Superordinate scope (I don't think they made their best offer).

2.2 Advanced Polarity Detection—Semantic Interpretation of SyntacticFragments Containing Polarity Terms

In an advanced polarity detection process, once a syntactic structurehas been built a lexicon is consulted to annotate the terminals withlexical information. The lexicon contains information describing therole that the word has in the context of interpreting polarity. Thisrole is described as either:

a) an atomic feature representing a grounded interpretation for thelexical item; e.g. positive negative.

b) a function which is to be applied to any sub-interpretation duringcomposition resulting in a new interpretation; e.g., invert which takesas an argument an atomic interpretation and produces a resultantinterpretation, e.g., invert(positive)->negative.

Such a set of lexical types may include:

Functions:

-   -   INVERT    -   INVERT-NEG: invert the polarity of a negative argument    -   INVERT-POS: invert the polarity of a positive argument    -   INTENSIFY-IF-INVERTED: intensify an inverted argument    -   NEGATIVE-IF-INVERTED: negate an inverted argument    -   POSITIVE-IF-INVERTED: make positive an inverted argument    -   NON-TRANSMITTING: block the application of inversion for this        verb    -   INTENSIFY: intensify the argument    -   NEGATIVE-NO-INVERSION: negate if no inversions have yet been        applied    -   FILTER: remove the interpretation from the composition

Atoms:

-   -   POSITIVE    -   NEGATIVE

Composition is the process by which an interpretation is built up (viathe application of functions, or via transmitting a child'sinterpretation to its parent) from the terminals in a syntactic tree tothe root of the tree.

Illustrative examples of semantic interpretation follow.

Syntactic Analysis

-   -   1. The input is segmented into a series of sentences    -   2. Each sentence is tokenized to produce a series of word-like        elements.    -   3. Each token is given a part of speech (POS) which is encoded        using a two or three character tag, e.g., NN for singular noun,        NNP for plural noun.    -   4. Each token is looked up in a lexicon. The lexicon uses the        POS and morphological analysis of the word. The morphological        analysis takes as input a word and a POS and produces a reduced        form of the word and the appropriate derived POS. For example,        looking up ‘breaking’ would produce the token ‘break’ with the        associated POS VB.    -   5. A grammatical analysis is performed on the entire sentence.        The goal of the grammatical analysis is to diagram as much of        the sentence as possible. In certain situations, the sentence        will be fully described as a single structure. Otherwise, the        structure will be fragmented.

Example—Given the following communication, “I heard this was a greatmovie. Did you like it?” The above steps are applied as follows:

-   -   1. ‘I heard this was a great movie.’ and ‘Did you like it?’    -   2. Taking the first sentence—‘I’, ‘heard’, ‘this’, ‘was’, ‘a’,        ‘great’, ‘movie’, ‘.’    -   3. I\PRP heard\VBD it\PRP was\VBD a\DT great\JJ movie\NN where        PRP is personal noun, VBD is a past tense verb, DT is a        determiner, JJ is adjective and NN is noun.    -   4. The only word that matches with the lexicon is ‘great’.    -   5. Using a bracketing notation to indicate structure, the        sentence can be represented as follows:

((I) (heard (this (was (a great movie)))))  NP NP VP  S-REL VP  S

The notation below the bracketed form shows how the sentence is builtup. The sentence consists of an NP—the subject Noun Phrase—(I) and a VPthe main Verb Phrase (hears this was a great movie. The VP is thenfurther split into a verb (heard) and a relative clause (S-REL) whichitself has a simple Subject Verb Object sentence structure.

Semantic Analysis. Now that we have the structural and lexicaldescription of the sentence, we can carry out a semantic analysis. Thesemantic analysis works in a simple compositional manner working fromthe nodes at the leaves of the tree structure (starting with the wordsthemselves and moving through the tree to the very top node).

In the above example, nothing too interesting happens. The node ‘great’has found a hit with a positive term in the lexicon. It is, therefore,associated with the ‘positive’ feature. This feature is, via thecompositional analysis mechanism, propagated all the way up the tree tothe top S node. The result is that the ‘positive’ feature is the onlypolarity feature present and thus the sentence is marked as beingpositive.

A more interesting case concerns the interaction of different lexicalitems. If we look at the fragment:

-   -   ‘it was not a good movie’

As before, ‘good’ finds a hit in the lexicon and gets the ‘positive’feature. ‘not’ also finds a hit in the lexicon and gets assigned the*function* ‘INVERT( )’. The ‘positive’ feature associated with ‘good’ isan *atomic* feature.

The structural analysis for this fragment is something like

-   -   ((it) ((was not) (a good movie)))

As before, ‘a good movie’, which is a noun phrase, gets associated withthe ‘positive’ feature. The INVERT( ) function, that the word ‘not’ hitin the lexicon makes its way up to the verbal group (‘was not’). Thehigher level node, a Verb Phrase that spans all of ‘was not a goodmovie’, has two children: ‘was not’ and ‘a good movie’. If we reducethese children to their semantic information, we have to twoexpressions: ‘INVERT( )’ and ‘positive’. The combinatorial processapplies the function to the atomic argument and evaluates the result.Thus ‘INVERT( )’ and ‘positive’ become ‘INVERT(positive)’ which thenbecomes ‘negative’. Just like the ‘positive’ feature in the earlierexample, this ‘negative’ feature then makes its way up the treestructure to the top S node, resulting in a sentence with negativepolarity.

More information about novelty of lexicon/semantics. When a word orphrase is looked up in the lexicon, the POS and the context surroundingit may be consulted. The POS allows the system to distinguish betweenthe grammatical function of the word (e.g. ‘pretty’ in ‘it was pretty’and ‘pretty’ in ‘it was pretty horrible’). The context, whenappropriate, can be used to distinguish other cases, such as thedifference between ‘well’ in ‘it works well’ and ‘well’ in ‘oh, well’.These contextual distinctions are made using a simple set of per entryrules which require the presence or absence of certain words eitherpreceding or following the lexical entry.

Specifically, when word (ordinal) w is looked up in a sentence of n>wwords, the lexicon has access to all the words in the sentence and canaddress them relative to the position w.

3. Polarity Evaluation

We wish to evaluate three aspects of our approach: the performance ofthe topic classifier on sentences, the performance of the polarityrecognition system and the assumption that polar sentences that are ontopic contain polar language about that topic.

Our evaluation experiment proceeded as follows. Using our messageharvesting and text mining toolkit, we acquired 20,000 messages fromonline resources (usenet, online message boards, etc.). Our messageharvesting system harvests messages in a particular domain (a verticalindustry, such as ‘automotive’, or a specific set of products). Messagesare then automatically tagged according to some set of topics ofinterest to the analyst.

We selected those messages which were tagged as being on topic for aparticular topic in the domain being studied (982 messages). Thesemessages were then segmented into sentences (using a naive sentenceboundary detection algorithm) resulting in (16,616 sentences). Thesentences were then tagged individually by the topic classifier (1,262sentences on topic) and the polarity recognition system described abovein Section 2.2.

We then selected at random 250 sentences for each of the evaluationtasks (topic, polarity, topic & polarity) and hand labeled them asfollows.

-   -   polarity: positive, negative (in a multi-label environment this        results in four possible combinations).    -   topic: topical, off-topic (a binary labeling).    -   topic and polarity: positive-correlated, negative-correlated,        positive-uncorrelated, negative-uncorrelated, topical,        off-topic. The positive-correlated label indicates that the        sentences contained a positive polar segment that referred to        the topic, positive-uncorrelated indicates that there was some        positive polarity but that it was not associated with the topic        in question.

As our system is designed to detect relative degrees of opinion we aremore interested in precision than recall. A greater issue than recall isthe potential bias that our set of classifiers might impose on the data.This aspect is not measured here due to the labor intensive nature ofthe task.

The results for the polarity task from this hand labeling are shown inTable 1. Sentences judged to have positive polarity were detected with aprecision of 82%. Negative sentences were judged to be detected with aprecision of 80%.

TABLE 1 Precision of polarity for hand labeled sentences. Positive: 82%;negative: 80% predicted pos Neg truth pos 139 notPos 30 neg 70 notNeg 174. Identifying Topical Sentences with a Document Classifier

In the previous section we approached the task of assessing thesentiment of a sentence through a shallow NLP approach. In this section,we take a different approach for determining the topicality of asentence. We treat the topicality judgment as a text classificationproblem and solve it with machine learning techniques.

In the standard (prior art) text classification approach, representativetraining examples are provided along with human judgments of topicality.From these, a learning algorithm forms a generalization hypothesis thatcan be used to determine topicality of previously unseen examples.Typically, the types of text that form the training examples are thesame type as those seen during the evaluation and application phases forthe classifier. That is, the classifier assumes the example distributionremains constant before and after training.

4.1. Classifying Topical Messages

In an exemplary embodiment of our text mining system for a specificmarketing domain, a machine learning text classifier is trained toassess topicality on whole messages and thus expects to predict whetheror not a whole message is relevant to the given topic. In this sectionwe explore how to use such a text classifier trained on whole messagesto accurately predict sentence-level topicality.

The provided classifier is trained with machine learning techniques froma collection of documents that have been hand-labeled with the binaryrelation of topicality. The underlying classifier is a variant of theWinnow classifier (N. Littlestone, “Learning quickly when irrelevantattributes abound: A new linear-threshold algorithm,” Machine Learning2, pp. 285-318, 1988; A. Blum, “Empirical support for winnow andweighted-majority based algorithms: results on a calendar schedulingdomain,” Machine Learning 26, pp. 5-23, 1997; and I. Dagan, Y. Karov,and D. Roth, “Mistake-driven learning in text categorization,” in EMNLP'97, 2nd Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing,1997), the disclosures of which are incorporated herein by reference, anonline learning algorithm that finds a linear separator between theclass of documents that are topical and the class of documents that areirrelevant. Documents are modeled with the standard bag-of-wordsrepresentation that simply counts how many times each word occurs in adocument. Winnow learns a linear classifier of the form:

$\begin{matrix}{{H(x)} = {\sum\limits_{w \in V}{f_{w}{c_{w}(x)}}}} & {{Equ}.\mspace{14mu} 1}\end{matrix}$

-   -   where c_(w)(x) is 1 if word w occurs in document x and 0        otherwise. f_(w) is the weight for feature w. If h(x)>V then the        classifier predicts topical, and otherwise predicts irrelevant.        The basic Winnow algorithm proceeds as:    -   1. Initialize all f_(w) to 1.    -   2. For each labeled document x in the training set:    -   2a. calculate H(x).    -   2b. If the document is topical, but Winnow predicts irrelevant,        update each weight f_(w) where c_(w)(x) is 1 by:        f _(w)*=2  Equ. 2    -   2c. If the document is irrelevant, but Winnow predicts topical,        update each weight f_(w) where c_(w)(x) is 1 by:        f _(w)/=2  Equ. 3

In a setting with many irrelevant features, no label noise and a linearseparation of the classes, Winnow is theoretically guaranteed to quicklyconverge to a correct hypothesis. Empirically, we have found Winnow tobe a very effective document classification algorithm, rivaling theperformance of Support Vector Machines (T. Joachims, “Textcategorization with support vector machines: Learning with many relevantfeatures,” in Machine Learning: ECML-98, Tenth European Conference onMachine Learning, pp. 137-142, 1998, the disclosure of which isincorporated herein by reference) and k-Nearest Neighbor (Y. Yang, “Anevaluation of statistical approaches to text categorization,”Information Retrieval 1(1/2), pp. 67-88, 1999, the disclosure of whichis incorporated herein by reference), two other state-of-the-art textclassification algorithms. In the exemplary embodiment, we use Winnowbecause it is more computationally efficient than SVMs and easier toapply than kNN. It is to be understood, of course, that it is within thescope of the invention to use classifiers other than the Winnowalgorithm.

4.2. Classifying Topical Sentences

In the exemplary embodiment, after determining whether the whole messageis considered relevant or irrelevant, we then use a straightforward andad-hoc technique of adapting a given document classifier into a highprecision/low recall sentence classifier. If a document is judged by theclassifier to be irrelevant, we predict that all sentences in thatdocument are also irrelevant. If a document is judged to be topical,then we further examine each sentence in that document. Given eachsentence and our text classifier, we simply form a bag-of-wordsrepresentation of the sentence as if an entire document consisted ofthat single sentence. We then run the classifier on the derivedpseudo-document. If the classifier predicts topical, then we label thesentence as topical and proceed with the sentiment analysis for thatsentence. If the classifier predicts irrelevant, we skip the sentimentanalysis and proceed on to the next sentence.

4.3. Experiment Results and Discussion

To evaluate this exemplary embodiment, we use the same experimentalsetup as described in the previous section. We trained a Winnowclassifier by hand-labeling 731 training messages, 246 which weretopical. Then, on our test collection, 982 messages were predicted to betopical by the classifier. Precision was measured at 85.4% (117/137 on arandomly selected test set) on the message level. The 982 messagescontained 16,616 sentences, 1262 of which were judged to be topical bythe classifier. These sentences came from 685 different documents,indicating that that 70% of documents judged to be topical also had atleast one sentence predicted to be topical. A random sample of 224 ofthe 1262 topical sentences were hand labeled. Precision on this set wasestimated at 79% (176/224). These results show that applying amessage-level classifier in a straightforward fashion on the sentencelevel still maintains about the same precision that was seen on thedocument level. However, this approach clearly results in a loss ofrecall, as a significant number of messages predicted to be topical didnot have any sentences predicted as topical.

4.4 Brand Specific Topical Polar Messages

This section describes how we use the polar sentence detector andidentify which messages contain positive or negative expressions about aparticular brand. The approach we take is to use a brand textclassifier, a feature text classifier, and a set of resolutionheuristics to combine these with the polar language detector.

In a marketing intelligence application of data mining, there aretypically topics of discussion in the data that warrant explicittracking and identification. The most prevalent type of topics arebrand-related, i.e. one topic for each product or brand being tracked,such as the Dell Axim. To facilitate this taxonomic requirement,analysts compose well-written hand-built rules to identify these typesof topics. These rules are based on words and phrases, and allow forstemming, synonymy, windowing, and context-sensitivity based on documentanalysis.

From one point of view, these brands are entities occurring in the text,and it might be considered that entity extraction would be the mostappropriate technology to apply. However, to facilitate tracking andidentification, extracted entities must be normalized to a set oftopics. For example, Axim, Dell Axim, and the Dell PDA should all fallinto the Dell Axim topic. An approach following that of Cohen, W. W.,“Data Integration Using Similarity Joins and a Word-Based InformationRepresentation Language,” ACM Transactions of Information Systems18(3):288-321 (2000), the disclosure of which is incorporated herein byreference, could be established to automatically normalize entities.However, since our customers typically know exactly which brands theywant to monitor, pre-building the rules in this case is both moreaccurate and the performance is more predictable and can be easilymeasured.

As discussed above, we showed that in the domain of online messagediscussion, intersecting sentiment with topic classifiers at thesentence level provides reasonable precision. That is, if a sentence ina message is both about a brand (according to its classifier) and alsocontains positive language (as detected by our sentiment analysis) oursystem asserts that the message is positive about that brand. Other NLPapproaches to sentiment do a finer-grained grammatical analysis toassociate sentiment with a topic. We have found that in the domain ononline discussion, using a sentence intersection approach has reasonablyhigh precision, and also better recall than a grammatical associationapproach. However, the recall is still relatively low, and thus weextend the recall through a second layer of classification andresolution. A second set of “feature classifiers” is defined torecognize discussion about features of a brand within the givenindustry. For example, in the automotive domain, there might beclassifiers for acceleration, interior styling, and dealership service.

In contrast to brand-like topics defined through rules, it's often thecase that other topics are more accurately recognized from a complexlanguage expression that is not easily captured by a rule. For example,topics such as Customer Service are not so simply captured by sets ofwords, phrases and rules. Thus, we often approach topic classificationwith machine learning techniques. The provided classifier is trainedwith machine learning techniques from a collection of documents thathave been hand-labeled with the binary relation of topicality. Thehand-labeling by the analysts is performed using an active learningframework. The underlying classifier is a variant of the Winnowclassifier (Littlestone 1988), an online learning algorithm that finds alinear separator between the class of documents that are topical and theclass of documents that are irrelevant. Documents are modeled with thestandard bag-of-words representation that discards the ordering of wordsand notices only whether or not a word occurs in a document.

These “feature classifiers” are used to extend the recall of identifyingpolar messages through the following process. If a message containsbrand mentions, the feature classifiers are also run on each sentence ina message. If a sentence is both polar and passes a feature classifier,there is likely a polar expression about one of the brands mentioned inthe message. A process of fact extraction is layered on top of theseclassifiers and the sentiment analysis to understand which brand isbeing referenced in the message. We use simple resolution techniques toassociate brand-like topics (e.g. Dell Axim) with topics describingfeatures of brands (e.g. Customer Service or Peripherals). For example,a brand can be referenced in the Subject line of a blog, andfeature-like topics mentioned in the body of the blog resolve back tothe brand topics in the subject line when other brands are not mentionedin the body. In this way, we identify facts that can be thought of astriples of brands, their (optional) features, and the (optional)polarity of the authorial expression.

For purposes of measuring aggregate sentiment for a brand, a message isconsidered positive about the brand if it contains a fact with thebrand's class and a positive polarity. A message is considered negativeabout the brand if it contains a fact with the brand's class and anegative polarity. While generally correct, the automated nature of thesystem results in a not insignificant amount of error in claiming thesefacts. Aggregating these counts into a single overall score for a brandrequires a mindfulness of the error rates, to avoid making incorrectclaims about a brand. Below we describe how the counts of each of thesegroups of messages is used to generate a score with confidence boundsthat achieves this goal.

4.5. Other Embodiments of Identifying Topical Sentences

An alternate embodiment for identifying topical sentences is to use ahand-built set of rules to identify sentences containing a topic. Forexample, to identify the display of a PDA, an analyst might write therule “the word ‘screen’ within five words of the word ‘PDA’, the word‘resolution’, the phrase ‘trans reflective’ but not the phrase ‘monitorresolution’. These rules can be run over every sentence in the documentcollection, and any sentence that matches the hand-written rule isconsidered topical.

FIG. 5 shows a screen shot of an exemplary computerized tool for writingtopical rules of this kind.

5. Polarity and Topic

One goal of the present invention is to reliably extract polarsentiments about a topic. An embodiment of our system assumes that asentence judged to be polar and also judged to be topical is indeedexpressing polarity about the topic. This relationship is assertedwithout any NLP-style evidence for a connection between the topic andthe sentiment, other than their apparent locality in the same sentence.This section tests the assumption that at the locality of a sentence, amessage that is both topical and polar actually expresses polarsentiment about the topic.

TABLE 2 Topic/Polarity combinations: 72% precision (72% for positive,71% for negative) predicted topic &positive topic &negative truth topic&positive 137 other 52 truth topic &negative 37 other 15

Using the polarity and topic modules described and tested in theprevious sections, the system identifies sentences that are judged to betopical and have either positive or negative sentiment. These sentencesare predicted by the system to be saying either positive or negativethings about the topic in question. Out of the 1262 sentences predictedto be topical, 316 sentences were predicted to have positive polarityand 81 were predicted to have negative polarity. The precision for theintersection—testing the assumption that a topical sentence with polarcontent is polar about that topic—is show in Table 2, above. The resultsshow the overall precision was 72%. Since the precision of the polaritymodule was 82% and the topic module 79%, an overall precision of 72%demonstrates that the locality assumption holds in most instances.

Below are five randomly selected sentences predicted to be negativetopical and five randomly selected sentences predicted to be positivetopical. These show typical examples of the sentences discovered by oursystem.

Negative Sentences:

-   -   Compared to the PRODUCT's screen this thing is very very poor.    -   In multimedia I think the winner is not that clear when you        consider that PRODUCT-A has a higher resolution screen than        PRODUCT-B and built in camera.    -   I never had a problem with the PRODUCT-A, but did encounter the        “Dust/Glass Under The Screen Problem” associated with PRODUCT-B.    -   broken PRODUCT screen    -   It is very difficult to take a picture of a screen.

Positive Sentences:

-   -   The B&W display is great in the sun.    -   The screen is at 70 setting (255 max) which is for me the lowest        comfortable setting.    -   At that time, superior screen.    -   Although I really don't care for a cover, I like what COMPANY-A        has done with the rotating screen, or even better yet, the        concept from COMPANY-B with the horizontally rotating screen and        large foldable keyboard.    -   The screen is the same (both COMPANY-A & COMPANY-B decided to        follow COMPANY—C), but multimedia is better and more stable on        the PRODUCT.        6. A Generative Model for Observing Polar Expressions

6.1 Confidence Scoring

Given a set of messages about brand X, previous sections describe how wedetermine (with some error) whether each message is positive, negative,mixed or neutral about brand X. The end sentiment metric is a functionof the estimated frequency of positive messages, and the estimatedfrequency of negative messages. The simplest measure of positivefrequency would be to just divide the number of positive messages aboutbrand X by the total number of messages about brand X. This approach maybe undesirable in two important ways. First, the analysis determiningpositive is error-prone, and the error rates of this are not accountedfor. Second, with small amounts of data, the true underlying frequencymay be quite far from the measured frequency. In this section wedescribe how we use Bayesian statistics to model these properties toderive valid estimates for the positive and negative frequencies.

The model we choose is a statistical generative model. That is, weassume the facts are extracted by an error-prone process that we modelwith explicit parameterization. Specifically for the sentiment metric,the fundamental parameter we hope to derive is the frequency of positivemessages about a brand, and the frequency of negative messages about abrand. These two processes are modeled analogously; for brevity wediscuss here only the derivation of the frequency of positive messages,but one of ordinary skill will readily appreciate how to derive thefrequency of negative messages using this model.

We model a generative process for facts about brand X by assuming thatthe positive frequency over all brands is modeled by a Betadistribution, and brand X's positive frequency, Θ is determined by adraw from this Beta distribution. Given the data D consisting of Nmessages about the brand, n of these are truly positive, determined by adraw from a Binomial distribution, Binomial(N, Θ)

The observation process of fact extraction makes two types of errors:(1) false positives, observing a true neutral as a positive, and (2)false negatives, observing a true positive as a neutral. Let these errorrates be ε_(fp) and ε_(fn) respectively. By observing N messages throughthe error-prone lens of fact extraction, we see m positive messagesinstead of the correct number n. Let fp, fn, tp and tn be the number offalse positive, false negative, true positive and true negative messagesobserved. Note that these are unknown from the observations, though wedo know that:tp+fp=m  Equ. 4tn+fn=N−m  Equ. 5

The goal of the parameter estimation process is to use the observedvalues N (total messages) and m (positive messages detected) andestimate Θ, the underlying frequency of true positive messages. As weare calculating this from a Bayesian perspective, we derive not only amaximum a posteriori estimate {circumflex over (Θ)}, but also aposterior distribution over Θ, which will be important in estimating thesize of the confidence bounds.

Given the data, we estimate Θ through an application of Bayes' rule andExpectation-Maximization. The posterior probability of Θ is:

$\begin{matrix}{{P( {\Theta ❘D} )} \propto {{P(\Theta)}{P( {D❘\Theta} )}}} & {{Equ}.\mspace{14mu} 6} \\{\propto {{{Beta}(\Theta)}\frac{1}{Z}\Theta^{n}{ɛ_{f\; n}^{f\; n}( {1 - ɛ_{f\; n}} )}^{t\; p}( {1 - \Theta} )^{N - n}{ɛ_{f\; p}^{f\; p}( {1 - ɛ_{{f\; p}\;}} )}^{t\; n}}} & {{Equ}.\mspace{14mu} 7}\end{matrix}$where Z is a normalization function of fp, fn, tp and tn.

This likelihood equation can be maximized through a straightforwardapplication of expectation-Maximization. Dempster, A. P.; Laird, N. M.;and Rubin, D. B. “Maximum Likelihood from Incomplete Data via the EMAlgorithm.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B39(1):1-38 (1977), the disclosure of which is incorporated herein byreference. In the general case, the EM iterative process will solve fora local maxima to a likelihood equation with missing data. In thisapplication, each datapoint's true sentiment is unknown, and only theobserved sentiments are known.

The M-step estimates Θ using the expectations of the missing values ofthe data:

$\begin{matrix}{\hat{\Theta} = \frac{{E\lbrack {t\; p} \rbrack} + {E\lbrack {f\; n} \rbrack} + \alpha}{N + \alpha + \beta}} & {{Equ}.\mspace{14mu} 8}\end{matrix}$where α and β are parameters given by the Beta prior for the Binomialdistribution.

The E-step calculates the expectation of the missing data using theestimated parameterization:

$\begin{matrix}{{E\lbrack {t\; p} \rbrack} = {m( \frac{\hat{\Theta}( {1 - ɛ_{f\; n}} )}{{\hat{\Theta}( {1 - ɛ_{f\; n}} )} + {( {1 - \hat{\Theta}} )ɛ_{f\; p}}} )}} & {{Equ}.\mspace{14mu} 9} \\{{E\lbrack {f\; p} \rbrack} = {m( \frac{( {1 - \hat{\Theta}} )ɛ_{{f\; p}\;}}{{\hat{\Theta}( {1 - ɛ_{f\; n}} )} + {( {1 - \hat{\Theta}} )ɛ_{f\; p}}} )}} & {{Equ}.\mspace{14mu} 10} \\{{E\lbrack {t\; n} \rbrack} = {( {N - m} )( \frac{\hat{\Theta}ɛ_{f\; n}}{{\hat{\Theta}ɛ_{f\; n}} + {( {1 - \hat{\Theta}} )( {1 - ɛ_{f\; p}} )}} )}} & {{Equ}.\mspace{14mu} 11} \\{{E\lbrack {f\; n} \rbrack} = {( {N - m} )( \frac{( {1 - \hat{\Theta}} )( {1 - ɛ_{f\; p}} )}{{\hat{\Theta}ɛ_{f\; n}} + {( {1 - \hat{\Theta}} )( {1 - ɛ_{f\; p}} )}} )}} & {{Equ}.\mspace{14mu} 12}\end{matrix}$

By iterating the E-steps and M-steps until convergence, we arrive at alocal maxima in likelihood space, giving us an estimate for Θ.Additionally, at this fixed point, we have also arrived at a posteriordistribution:P(Θ|D)=Beta(E[tp]+E[fn]+α, E[tn]+E[fp]+β)  Equ. 13

This is not mathematically the true posterior distribution, as it doesnot account for the uncertainty in the estimation of which messages wereerroneously or correctly observed. We have empirically observed muchsuccess in using this approximation.

Four parameters of this model are set through empirical methods: ε_(fp),ε_(fn), α, and β. Both ε_(fp) and ε_(fn) are set by simply measuringthese over a set of labeled data. Both α and β are estimated through aprocess of setting empirical priors using large sets of unlabeled data.

The process described is a method for deriving estimates for thepositive and negative frequencies of a brand. However, customer needsrequire that only a single summary statistic be produced, and that theform of this is a 1-10 metric. Additionally, a 5.0 value of the metricneeds to correspond to the case where the estimated frequencies ofpositive and negative are equal, and generally, very few brands shouldscore at the most extreme ends of the score. The frequencies areconverted to a 1-10 score through a log linear normalization of theratio of positive to negative. Thus, if a 7.0 corresponds to a ratio of2.0, then 9.0 corresponds to a ratio of 4.0 and a 3.0 score to a ratioof 0.5. Extreme ratios are very rare, and anything beyond a 1 or a 10are simply truncated at the extrema.

To measure the confidence bounds of a sentiment score estimated by thisprocess, we use the posterior distribution of the positive and negativefrequencies. We estimate 95% confidence bounds by repeatedly samplingfrom these posterior distributions, and then plugging this into the 1-10conversion metric. It's extremely fast to sample this 1000 times, andselect the 2.5% and 97.5% lower and upper bounds to set a 95% confidenceinterval. This process implicitly makes the assumption that thedistribution of positive frequency and negative frequencies areindependent. While somewhat of a simplification, we have found thisprocess to hold up well empirically.

6.2 Empirical Validation

This section presents empirical results of the polarity metric withconfidence bounds in two different domains. We also demonstrate that theconfidence bounds are well-behaved, and necessary for goodinterpretation of comparisons between brands.

One important industry for Intelliseek is the automotive industry. Tothis extent, we have configured a system to recognize allcurrently-available auto makes and models. in addition, we have defineda number of classifiers for automotive features, from physicalcharacteristics such as interior styling, to leasing and dealerships, tomore intangible items like customer service. Table 3 displays messagecounts, sentiment scores, and sentiment confidence bounds for a samplingof auto brands, as determined by the algorithms described in theprevious section. The table shows numbers for a time-constrained set ofmessages. By analyzing just a small timeframe, the message counts can besomewhat small, which highlights the needs for the confidence bounds onthe metric.

TABLE 3 Model # Messages Sentiment Bounds Mazda Mazda6 568 8.0 1.2Infiniti G35 292 7.9 1.7 Hyundai Sonata 212 7.7 2.2 Audi A4 431 7.3 1.2BMW M3 504 7.0 1.0 Toyota Corolla 684 6.6 0.8 Honda Odyssey 317 6.6 1.3Toyota Celica 276 6.4 1.3 Ford F150 412 6.2 0.9 Honda S2000 543 6.2 0.8Honda Accord 1951 5.8 0.5 Nissan Altima 444 5.2 1.1 Honda Civic 1212 5.00.6 Honda CR-V 274 4.5 1.2 Dodge Ram 248 4.5 1.5 Volkswagen Jetta 5054.3 0.9 Ford Taurus 469 3.7 1.1

The above Table 3 shows the results of the sentiment metric applied inthe auto domain. Note that in general, models with larger message countshave smaller confidence bounds. Using these scores to drive analysis,yields insights that explain the relative rankings of the differentmodels.

By drilling down on some of the backing data for sentiment scores, it ispossible to understand why specific models were rated highly or lowly.By investigating further, we find that the Mazda 6 (a highly ratedmodel) had a number of positive comments surrounding its performance andstyling in the sports sedan market:

-   -   I think the Mazda 6 is the best value for a sports sedan    -   The Mazda 6 is one of the best handling FWD autos    -   The Mazda6 MPS achieves a superior balance between high        performance and daily needs such as comfort and economy.    -   That car is soo good lookin!    -   Power and torque are faithfully and thoroughly transferred to        the road surface for maximum efficiency.

The Ford Taurus, a lower rated model, received a number of complaintsabout quality issues and begin generally out of date:

-   -   I had three separate Tauruses with leaky rear main seals.    -   The Taurus in a failure.    -   The standard spoiler is too small.    -   The power steering always whined, even with enough fluid.    -   The Taurus should have been put out of its misery 5 years ago.

TABLE 4 Destination # Messages Sentiment Bounds Aruba 539 9.7 1.4Antigua 944 8.8 1.2 St. Lucia 687 8.3 1.2 St. Bart's 116 7.7 2.6Barbados 1440 6.8 0.9 Grand Bahama 3384 6.4 0.5 Jamaica 5479 5.9 0.4Cuba 2435 5.3 0.8 Grand Cayman 492 5.1 1.7

The above Table 4 illustrates Results of the sentiment metric inmeasuring aggregate opinion about Caribbean vacation destinations.

Table 4 shows the results of measuring polarity for location topics in asmall data set of messages about Caribbean destinations. By furtherdrilling down on these scores, an analyst can quickly determine that:

-   -   Aruba scores well due to a good general opinion of dining out,        snorkeling and beach activities.    -   Cuba has a lower score due to poor snorkeling and beach        activities.    -   Grand Bahama's medium score comes from above average opinion of        snorkeling, moderate opinion of dining out and a slightly lower        opinion of beach activities.

FIG. 7 provides a scatterplot showing how the size of the confidencebounds is influenced by the number of messages. Each point is anautomotive model. Once there are about 1000 messages for a topic, the95% confidence bounds tend to be within 1.0 on a ten point scale.

FIG. 7 shows an analysis of the confidence bounds by the amount ofmessage volume about a brand. The x-axis shows the number of messagesabout a brand, and the y-axis shows the estimated size of the 95%confidence bounds. With a very small amount of data for a brand, theconfidence bounds on each brand tend to be rather large. This generallywill prevent conclusive expressions to be made by comparing sentimentscores with these large confidence bounds. As the message volume getslarger, the bounds get smaller, and thus it becomes easier to makestatistically valid conclusions based on these scores.

7. Demonstration of User Interface

FIGS. 1-4 provide screen shots of an exemplary computerized tool forimplementing certain embodiments of the present invention.

The screen shot of FIG. 1 illustrates a function of the exemplarycomputerized tool establishing a topic for the text mining algorithmcontained therein. Three main features visible in this screen view arethe Topic Select window 20, the Viewer window 22, and the Current Slicebox 24. The Topic Select window 20 lists the available topics from whichthe user may select a topic for analysis. The Viewer window 22 displaysthe text of a particular message. The Current Slice box 24 providesstatus information regarding the user's selections that define theresearch project that is being performed. In the example shown, theCurrent Slice box 24 indicates that the Topic selected by the user is“Hardware::Display”. With this selection, the exemplary computerizedtool will concentrate on certain characteristics regarding amanufacturer's electronic device (in this case, a PDA) or the competingelectronic devices of the manufacturer's competitors. The tool hasaccess to a repository of thousands or millions of internetmessage-board entries preselected as likely having content of interest(e.g., taken from internet message boards dedicated to electronicdevices and/or PDAs). The Viewer window 22 provides an example messagefound by the above-described text mining tool in the repository ofmessages that the text mining tool considered relevant to the selectedtopic.

In the FIG. 1 screen view, the right-side block 25 displays datapertaining to the analysis of the currently selected message contents.The Relevance, Aux Relevance, Positive and Negative Polarity displaysshow a score between zero and one for the currently selected message foreach of these different types of scoring. Specifically, scores greaterthan zero for Positive and Negative Polarity mean that at least onesentence in the message has been identified as positive or negative,with a higher score indicating a higher degree of positivity ornegativity identified in the message. The Relevance and Aux Relevancescores indicate a confidence that the message is about the selectedtopic (PDA's and Pocket PCs in this example). Messages that are below aspecified threshold of relevance can be excluded.

The screen shot of FIG. 2 illustrates a function of the exemplarycomputerized tool in which the user may establish a more specific aspectof the general topic selected in the screen of FIG. 1. The Viewer window22 and Current Slice box 24 appear again and serve the same purpose asdescribed above with reference to FIG. 1. However, there is now aPhrase-select window 26, which allows the user to enter a word or groupof words to specify the content to be analyzed in the messages. In theexample shown, the Current Slice box 24 indicates that the user hasentered the phrase “resolution,” thus indicating that the messages willbe searched for comments relating to the resolution of the hardwaredisplays. The Viewer window 22 provides an example message found by theabove-described text mining tool in the repository of messages that thetext mining tool considered relevant to the selected topic and phrase,with the selected phrase “resolution” appearing in highlighted text 26.

The screen shot of FIG. 3 illustrates a function of the exemplarycomputerized tool in which the user has requested the tool to illustratethe positive sentences and negative sentences located in the messagesconsidered to be topical to the resolution of the customer's electronicdevice screen. The positive sentences found by the sentence classifierare listed under the “Positive Quotes” header 28 in the Quotes window 30and the negative sentences found by the sentence classifier are listedunder the “Negative Quotes” header 32 in the Quotes window 30. As can beseen by this example, not every sentence is directly on point, but thereare certainly a substantial ratio of sentences that are on point versusthose that are not. Additionally, the user has the ability to select oneof the sentences, such as sentence 34 to view the entire message fromwhich it was extracted as shown in the Viewer window of FIG. 4.

The screen shot of FIG. 4 shows the Viewer window 22 displaying the textof the message from which the comment 34 shown in FIG. 3 selected by theuser originated.

The screen shot of FIG. 5 illustrates a demonstration of how rule-basedclassifiers may be built. This tool allows the user to define a topic(such as a particular brand or product) by creating a “rule” built fromwords to be associated with that topic. Such a rule can be used tosearch feedback or comment messages, with those messages that conform tothe defined rule being identified as pertaining to the selected topic.

On the left-hand part of the FIG. 5 screen is a list 36 containing thedifferent topics for which the topical sentiment analysis of the presentinvention may be performed. This list can be generated by a database andinclude topics for which feedback or comment is available. In theexample shown, “Kia Optima” is the currently selected topic 38. Themiddle of the screen contains a window 40 for implementing the tool forwriting rules to define the currently selected topic. The window 40 isfurther divided into an “OR Rules” block 42 and a “BUT-NOT Rules” block44. Words appearing in the “OR Rules” block will be associated with thetopic, such that feedback or comment messages containing any of thesewords will be identified as pertaining to the selected topic. Wordsappearing in the “BUT-NOT Rules” block will be given preclusive effectin the topic definition, such that the appearance of one of these wordsin a feedback or comment message will disqualify that message frompertinence to the selected topic. For example, the rule defined by thewords shown in the “OR Rules” block 42 and “BUT-NOT Rules” block 44 ofFIG. 5 can be stated as “A message is about the Kia Optima if the word‘Optima’ appears in the message, but not if any of the phrases ‘Optimabatteries’, ‘Optima battery’, ‘Optima Yellow’, ‘Optima Red’, or ‘OptimaYell’ appear in the message”. When building rules, the user can typewords to be added to the “OR Rules” block 42 and “BUT-NOT Rules” block44, or the user can select words or phrase sets from the list 46 on theright side of the FIG. 5 screen. The list 46 is a collection ofpreviously-entered or customized words and phrases, which can be used asshortcuts when writing a rule.

8. Process for Specializing a Lexicon for a Data Set

A standard lexicon may be applied to any data set. However, the resultswill be improved if the lexicon is tuned to work with the particularlanguage of a domain. A system has been implemented to assist a user incarrying out this process.

-   -   1. Messages for the domain are collected (as part of the        configuration process within the application housing the        polarity system).    -   2. Messages are scanned to determine which words have the        potential to be added to the lexicon.    -   3. The user is stepped through these candidate words and        required to indicate if they accept or reject the word for the        custom lexicon.

Step 2 above uses a number of methods to determine which words are to beused as candidates: (a) patterned based methods (Gregory Grefenstette,Yan Qu, David A. Evans and James G. Shanahan, Validating the Coverage ofLexical Resources for Affect Analysis and Automatically Classifying NewWords Along Semantic Axes, AAAI Symposium on Exploring Attitude andAffect in Text: Theories and Applications, 2004, the disclosure of whichis incorporated herein by reference); and (b) commonly occurringadjectives and adverbs not found in the lexicon and not include in adefault lexicon of known non polar terms.

In the pattern driven approach, a number of patterns are used to locateadjectives and adverbs which have a good chance of being polar. Thepatterns involve both tokens (words) and parts of speech. The patternsconsist of a prefix of tokens and a target set of POS tags. The patternsare created from a pair of word pools. Pool one contains, for example,‘appears’, ‘looks’, ‘seems’, pool two contains, for example, ‘very’,‘extremely’. The product of these pools (e.g. ‘appears very’, ‘looksextremely’ and so on) is then appended with one of the target POS tags(which select for adjectives and adverbs) giving a complete set ofpatterns (e.g. ‘looks extremely JJ’ meaning the sequence of two tokensand a POS tag).

To populate the candidate list, the messages in the corpus collected forthe project being customized is scanned using the patterns describedabove. All words which match any of the patterns are collected.

In a parameter driven approach, all adjectives and adverbs in messageswhich have already been marked as polar, and which have counts above acertain threshold, are added to the list of candidates.

Each of the above pattern driven and parameter driven approaches can betuned using a filter which accepts only candidates which appear acertain number of times in the corpus. By using these parameters, wecreate four candidate creation methods, two for each approach. The userthen steps through the four sets of candidates, accepting or rejectingwords as appropriate. The interface within which this is carried outpresents the user with the word, its POS and a list of examples of thatword appearing in contexts mined from the corpus of messages.

As shown in FIG. 6, an example screen shot shows such a system in use.The system is presenting the user with the word ‘underwhelming’ whichhas been generated in the first candidate generation step. The word isillustrated by two examples that have been pulled from the corpus ofmessages. The user labels the word either by keyboard or shortcuts, orby clicking on the appropriate label found in the bottom right handcorner of the display.

9. Conclusions

Determining the sentiment of an author by text analysis requires theability to determine the polarity of the text as well as the topic. Inthese exemplary embodiment, topic detection is generally solved by atrainable classification algorithm and polarity detection is generallysolved by a grammatical model. The approach described in some of theseembodiments takes independent topic and polarity systems and combinesthem, under the assumption that a topical sentence with polaritycontains polar content on that topic. We tested this assumption anddetermined it to be viable for the domain of online messages. Thissystem provides the ability to retrieve messages (in fact, parts ofmessages) that indicate the author's sentiment to some particular topic,a valuable capability.

The detection of polarity is a semantic or meta-semantic interpretiveproblem. A complete linguistic solution to the problem would deal withword sense issues and some form of discourse modeling (which wouldultimately require a reference resolution component) in order todetermine the topic of the polar expressions. Our approach restrictsthese open problems by constraining the data set, and specializing thedetection of polarity. These steps by no means address directly thesecomplex linguistic issues, but taken in conjunction (and with someadditional aspects pertaining to the type of expressions found in thedomain of online messages) the problem is constrained enough to produceperfectly reliable results.

Following from the above description and invention summaries, it shouldbe apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art that, while thesystems and processes herein described constitute exemplary embodimentsof the present invention, it is understood that the invention is notlimited to these precise systems and processes and that changes may bemade therein without departing from the scope of the invention asdefined by the following proposed claims. Additionally, it is to beunderstood that the invention is defined by the proposed claims and itis not intended that any limitations or elements describing theexemplary embodiments set forth herein are to be incorporated into themeanings of the claims unless such limitations or elements areexplicitly listed in the proposed claims. Likewise, it is to beunderstood that it is not necessary to meet any or all of the identifiedadvantages or objects of the invention disclosed herein in order to fallwithin the scope of any proposed claims, since the invention is definedby the claims and since inherent and/or unforeseen advantages of thepresent invention may exist even though they may not have beenexplicitly discussed herein.

1. A computer implemented method for obtaining topical sentiments from aplurality of electronically stored communications comprising:determining with the assistance of a computer whether each communicationin a plurality of communications is topical to a first topic; for eachcommunication determined to be topical to the first topic, separatingwith the assistance of a computer the communication into least oneexpression; for each of the at least one expression, determining withthe assistance of a computer if the expression is topical to a secondtopic; for each expression that is determined to be topical to thesecond topic, determining with the assistance of a computer a polarityof the expression; and reporting the polarity of each expression.
 2. Themethod of claim 1, wherein the polarity is taken from at least one ofthe following sentiments: positive, negative, and neutral.
 3. The methodof claim 1, wherein determining the polarity of the expression includes:establishing a topical domain being explored; generating a polaritylexicon of at least one sentimental word or sentimental phraseassociated with the topical domain; utilizing with the assistance of acomputer the polarity lexicon against at least one word or phrase foundin the expression; and assigning the at least one word or phrase in theexpression a polarity associated with at least one matching sentimentalword or sentimental phrase in the polarity lexicon.
 4. The method ofclaim 1, wherein determining the polarity of the expression furthercomprises analyzing the expression with at least one of syntactic orsemantic rules.
 5. The method of claim 1, wherein determining with theassistance of a computer whether each communication in a plurality ofcommunications is topical to a first topic includes processing eachcommunication with a text classifier.
 6. The method of claim 5, whereinthe text classifier utilizes at least one of: a Winnow algorithm, aSupport Vector Machine algorithm, a k-Nearest Neighbor algorithm and arules-based classifier.
 7. The method of claim 1, wherein, for eachexpression, determining with the assistance of a computer if theexpression is topical to a second topic includes processing eachexpression with a text classifier.
 8. The method of claim 7, wherein thetext classifier utilizes at least one of: a Winnow algorithm, a SupportVector Machine algorithm, a k-Nearest Neighbor algorithm and arules-based classifier.
 9. The method of claim 1, further comprisingcalculating with the assistance of a computer an aggregate metric fromthe plurality of expressions which estimates the frequency of at leastone of positive or negative polar expressions.
 10. The method of claim9, wherein calculating an aggregate metric from the plurality ofexpressions comprises generating of statistically-valid confidencebounds on the aggregate metric.
 11. The method of claim 10, whereincalculating an aggregate metric from the plurality of expressionsincludes: for each of the plurality of expressions, estimating anopinion based upon at least one of a presence, absence or strength ofpolarity associated with the first topic; and aggregating the opinionsfor the plurality of expressions into an overall opinion.
 12. The methodof claim 11, wherein aggregating the opinions for the plurality ofexpressions includes normalizing a ratio of at least one of empirical orestimated frequency of positive and negative polarity associated withthe first topic.
 13. The method of claim 10 wherein calculating anaggregate metric from the plurality of expressions includes utilizingBayesian statistics to derive estimates for positive and negativefrequencies of polar expressions.
 14. The method of claim 1, wherein thefirst topic is a general topic and the second topic is a specific topicassociated with the general topic.
 15. The method of claim 14, whereinthe general topic is at least one of a product or service and thespecific topic is a feature of the at least one of the product orservice.
 16. The method of claim 14, wherein the general topic is acommercial brand and the specific topic is a feature of the commercialbrand.
 17. The method of claim 1, wherein the first topic and the secondtopic are the same topic.
 18. A method for calculating, from a pluralityof electronically stored expressions, an aggregate metric whichestimates a frequency of at least one of positive or negative polarexpressions contained in the expressions, comprising: determining withthe assistance of a computer whether each communication in a pluralityof communications is topical to a first topic; for each communicationdetermined to be topical to the first topic, separating thecommunication into a plurality of electronically stored expressions;determining with the assistance of a computer an opinion contained ineach of the plurality of electronically stored expressions based upon atleast one of a presence, absence and strength of polarity associatedwith the first topic; calculating an aggregate metric from thedetermined opinions; and reporting the aggregate metric.
 19. The methodof claim 18, wherein calculating the aggregate metric from thedetermined opinions includes generating statistically-valid confidencebounds on the aggregate metric.
 20. The method of claim 18, whereincalculating the aggregate metric from the determined opinions includesnormalizing a ratio of at least one of empirical or estimated frequencyof positive and negative polarity associated with the first topic. 21.The method of claim 20 wherein calculating the aggregate metric from thedetermined opinions further includes utilizing Bayesian statistics toderive estimates for positive and negative frequencies of polarexpressions.
 22. The method of claim 18, wherein calculating theaggregate metric from the determined opinions includes utilizingBayesian statistics to derive estimates for positive and negativefrequencies of polar expressions.
 23. The method of claim 18, whereindetermining the opinion for each of the plurality of electronicallystored expressions further comprises: determining with the assistance ofa computer that the expression is topical to the first topic; anddetermining with the assistance of a computer a polarity of theexpression.
 24. The method of claim 23, wherein determining with theassistance of a computer that the expression is topical to the firsttopic includes utilizing a text classifier.
 25. The method of claim 24,wherein determining with the assistance of a computer a polarity of theexpression includes: establishing a topical domain being explored;generating a polarity lexicon of at least one sentimental word orsentimental phrase associated with the topical domain; utilizing withthe assistance of a computer the polarity lexicon against at least oneword or phrase found in the expression; and assigning the at least oneword or phrase in the expression a polarity associated with at least oneof a matching sentimental word or sentimental phrase in the polaritylexicon.
 26. The method of claim 24, wherein determining with theassistance of a computer the polarity of the expression includesanalyzing with the assistance of a computer the expression with at leastone of syntactic or semantic rules.
 27. The method of claim 23, whereindetermining with the assistance of a computer the polarity of theexpression includes: establishing a topical domain being explored;generating a polarity lexicon of at least one sentimental word orsentimental phrase associated with the topical domain; utilizing withthe assistance of a computer the polarity lexicon against at least oneword or phrase found in the expression; and assigning the at least oneword or phrase in the expression a polarity associated with at least oneof a matching word or a matching phrase in the polarity lexicon.
 28. Themethod of claim 23, wherein determining with the assistance of acomputer the polarity of the expression includes analyzing with theassistance of a computer the expression with at least one of syntacticor semantic rules.
 29. A computer implemented method for finding atleast one polar expression in a plurality of electronically storedcommunications, comprising: determining with the assistance of acomputer whether each communication in a plurality of communications istopical to a first predefined topic; for each communication determinedto be topical to the first topic, separating the communication into atleast one expression; for each expression, determining with theassistance of a computer if the expression is topical to a second topic;providing a polarity lexicon of at least one of sentimental words orsentimental phrases associated with a topical domain; for eachexpression that is determined to be topical to the second topic,utilizing with the assistance of a computer the polarity lexicon againstthe at least one word or phrase found in the expression; and assigningwith the assistance of a computer a polarity associated with at leastone matching sentimental word or sentimental phrase in the polaritylexicon to the at least one word or phrase in the expression.
 30. Themethod of claim 29, wherein assigning with the assistance of a computerthe at least one word or phrase in the expression a polarity associatedwith the at least one of the matching sentimental word or matchingsentimental phrase in the polarity lexicon, includes: separating theexpression into at least one word chunk or phrase chunk; tagging the atleast one word chunk or phrase chunk with part-of-speech tags; applyingthe polarity lexicon against the at least one word chunk or phrase chunkto tag at least one of the at least one word chunk or phrase chunk witha polarity tag; and applying syntactic and semantic rules against thetagged at least one word chunks or phrase chunk to evaluate the polarityof the expression.
 31. The method of claim 30, wherein applyingsyntactic and semantic rules against the at least one word chunk orphrase chunk to evaluate the polarity of the expression includesidentifying at least one word chunk or phrase chunk in the expressionthat toggles the polarity of the at least one word chunk or phrase chunktagged with the polarity tag.
 32. The method of claim 30, whereinapplying syntactic and semantic rules against the at least one of wordchunk or phrase chunk to evaluate the polarity of the expressionincludes performing with the assistance of a computer grammaticalanalysis on the expression.
 33. The method of claim 30, furthercomprising generating with the assistance of a computer the polaritylexicon from a domain-general lexicon that is tuned to a topical domainbeing explored.
 34. The method of claim 33, further comprising tuningwith the assistance of a computer implemented graphical user interfacethe polarity lexicon by providing a user with candidates for at leastone of addition, subtraction or exclusion to the polarity lexicon andfor at least one of adding, subtracting or excluding each candidate fromthe polarity lexicon according to input received by the graphical userinterface.
 35. A computer implemented method for obtaining topicalsentiments from a body of electronically stored communicationscomprising: isolating with the assistance of a computer a first subsetof the communications topical to a particular topic; isolating with theassistance of a computer a second subset of communications from thefirst subset of communications where the second subset of communicationsincludes polar segments; for each communication in the second subset ofcommunications, separating the communication into at least oneexpression; for each of the at least one expression, determining withthe assistance of a computer if the expression is topical to a secondtopic; and reporting each expression that is topical to the secondtopic.
 36. The method of claim 35, wherein the polar segments are atleast one of positive or negative.
 37. The method of claim 35, whereinthe polar segments located in the first subset of communications arepositive and the method further includes isolating a third subset ofcommunications from the first subset where the third subset ofcommunications include negative segments located in the first set ofcommunications.
 38. The method of claim 35 further comprisingassociating the polar segments with the particular topic.
 39. The methodof claim 35 further comprising displaying the polar segments on acomputer display.
 40. The method of claim 39, further comprisingdisplaying a communication from which the polar segment was extracted.41. The method of claim 35, wherein the segment is at least one of asentence, a phrase, a paragraph or an entire communication.
 42. Acomputer implemented method for tuning a polarity lexicon for use inclassifying polar expressions, comprising: providing a polarity lexicon;determining with the assistance of a computer whether each communicationin a plurality of communications is topical to a first topic; for eachcommunication determined to be topical to the first topic, separatingthe communication into at least one expression; scanning the at leastone expression for candidate words that have the potential to be addedto the polarity lexicon; with the assistance of a computer implementedgraphical user interface providing a user with the candidate words forat least one of addition, subtraction or exclusion to the polaritylexicon; and at least one of adding, subtracting or excluding eachcandidate word from the polarity lexicon according to input received bythe graphical user interface.
 43. The method of claim 42, whereinscanning includes a pattern based method that locates adjectives andadverbs that have a substantial chance of being polar.
 44. The method ofclaim 42, wherein scanning locates candidate words by filtering thecommunication for words that appear at least a predefined number oftimes.
 45. The method of claim 42, wherein scanning includes a patternbased method that locates adjectives and adverbs that have a substantialchance of being polar and locates candidate words by filtering thecommunication for words that appear at least a predefined number oftimes.
 46. The method of claim 42 wherein providing with a graphicaluser interface a user with candidate words for at least one of addition,subtraction or exclusion to the polarity lexicon includes presentingeach candidate word to the user with the word's part of speech label andan example of that candidate word appearing in at least one electronicmessage collected for the topical domain.
 47. A computer implementedmethod for obtaining topical sentiments from a plurality ofelectronically stored communications comprising: determining with theassistance of a computer whether each communication in a plurality ofcommunications is topical to a first topic; for each communicationdetermined to be topical to the first topic, determining with theassistance of a computer at least one topical expression in thecommunication; locating with the assistance of a computer one or morepolar expressions in the topical expressions; and reporting anexpression that is both a topical expression and a polar expression ascontaining a topical sentiment.
 48. The computer implemented method ofclaim 47, wherein determining at least one topical expression andlocating at least one polar expression are performed on the samecommunication.
 49. The computer implemented method of claim 48, whereindetermining at least one topical expression includes applying anautomated text classifier on the communication and wherein locating atleast one polar expression includes utilizing a domain-specific lexiconand shallow NLP techniques.